McCain's Irony Effect

Well, what cred you had, you lost, because it's rebranded this year as NetRoots Nation.

This column says, in essence, that the reason the press loves McCain is because he is insincere, inauthentic and cynical.

But because he tells the reporters just how he is conning the rubes, they feel like special insider types.

This plays fine in a short, losing primary campaign. It will not work for a national general election. Bumilller or someone else will show up and start asking questions that have been declared out of bounds, like McCain's attempt to get onto Kerry's ticket.

Michael, that was indeed an interesting piece. But I think it misses out on the fact that "bloggers" like you are also genuinely awed by the whole macho, tough guy, clenched jaw, war hero thing.

The contemporary press corps has a lot of anxiety about its masculinity -- maybe because a lot were picked on in high school (ha ha) -- and that definitely aids McCain, Bush, and other self-styled tough guy jock types.

Gabler's article is brilliant, because it lays out the realization that falsehood is now the primary construction material of our society. Reporters like McCain because his lies are more stylish and "cooler" than the clumsy or pious falsehoods of his opponents.

Gabler also points out that everyone in the Presidential contest process has come to view it as imbecilic. The earnest illogic of the Time bloggers on Swampland is just another species of falsehood. What Gabler and Scherer do not yet grasp is that the Internet favors radical honesty. This will be a very painful lesson for organizations like Time-Warner, and a learning experience that some of them may not survive.

And today "Mr. Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Iraq" & "100 Years in Iraq" is speaking and saying he "hates war" WINK WINK

I can hardly wait for you to tell us what flavor the kool-aid is Michael.

Enjoy the next barbecue.

I grasp it, HH. I grasp.

And Jackaroyd, you are probably right. Not much lost. I was never going to fit in.

You seemed reasonably comfortable when we chatted.

jay...oh your naivite is so cute. dont you know that the press corps thinks of the populace as rubes too. i apologize, you are not naive as much s you are much too overly informed to be reading blogs such as this. go out young man and inform your friends so they too can be bright young minds who can see through the circle jerk that is the mccain press conference

Oh, and I have to note that this is practically Glenn Greenwald article, that the press regards sincerity and concern about policy as nerdy and uncool.

jay,
my son is a student at Ohio University's Scripps School of Journalism and I can safely tell you that the number of students i would consider candidates to be serious investigative journalists in the making is much smaller than those i would classify as "talking hairdo's in waiting". this is a top 5 journalism school, sigh

Also for those who are interested, about a year ago, I wrote up my first experience on the McCain bus here:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/03/18/mccain/

How different is McCain's schtick from that of Bush circa 2000? The whole mocking, towel-snapping jokester thing with the press has worked before, hasn't it?

I think this is the first time I've seen a member of the media admit that Saint McCain the Baloney gets a free ride from them. In other words the free press is admitting to being a propaganda instrument rather than a fair and balanced news gathering entity. Of course the rest of us have known this for a long time simply by observing how the press behaves in respect to McCain versus the others.

I grasp it, HH. I grasp.

You and your colleagues grasp nothing but your next paycheck. You make a pretense of dialog here, but like a wobbly holographic image in a cheap sci-fi movie, you fade away at the first threat of sustained discourse. Why? Because the nonsensical rubbish you write can't withstand a half dozen exchanges with informed readers.

Swampland is false to its core. It maintains a pretense of a forum in which readers can engage the Time writers, but the writers run and hide at every attempt to have a sustained dialog on any issue. Some, like the execrable Joe Klein, don't even read the threads. Other, like KT and Ana pop up, gopher like, to answer a few questions, then duck and hide.

You are all a pack of paid propagandists pretending to be honest individuals speaking with authentic voices. But your leashes are held tight, and any sustained honesty displayed by you on this blog would be punished swiftly by your paymasters.

The growing number of trusted independent reporters and commentators on the public Internet are going to sweep you all into the dustbin of history. It cannot happen too soon.

So even when he breaks character, he's falling back on being a character breaking character. So following the logic forward, we find that McCain is in fact an infinite regress of Russian Dolls, each one just as insincere as the one it's contained within.

Thanks for the fascinating visual.

Hey Michael,

Since you are so intersted in how McCain is pursuing the media, why are you and your MSM colleagues not more interested in how the Clintons have been seeking out the help and support of Richard Mellon Scaife:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/26/8177/19959/626/484477

This seems to me to be a huge story...and I am puzzled why there is not more than a whisper of this in the mainstream media....

HH. I think you are wrong. But we will let the record decide who is right.

Jayackroyd, did we meet? I might have remembered, but my disdain for anyone who does not work for Moloch made it not worth my while. (That is a joke. A joke. Ha. Ha.)

jayackroyd:
"because he tells the reporters just how he is conning the rubes, they feel like special insider types."

I bet that's pretty much it.

It's a lot like the self-protective irony you seen on those horrible MTV award shows, or during a predictably awful SNL sketch.

Everyone participating in the performance knows that it's poorly executed and generally, well, just bad.

But if you adopt that hip, self-distancing, eye-rolling ironic pose, you might manage to convey that you're above it all--at least, to your fellow self-loathing adolescents.

HH, don't you see that you've come to these opinions because of Scherer's article?
(I'm sick of mean posts)

And something seems really, really wrong when wink, wink is okay in our dialog. That's one reason I like Senator Obama's campaign. It seems to me he's honest. Even if it's what we don't want to hear.

The article Scherer links to in the comment above isn't bad, it does a good job of dealing with this issue.

Michael et al. Hope you also read Matt Welch's op-ed in the NYT today about McCain's "decade long attack on the individual." I hadn't thought about McCain in quite these terms. I find him a little scary, as a matter of fact. There are so many democrats who think he's liberal just because he's self-deprecating and ironic.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/26/opinion/26welch.html

"By being ironic, the candidate says, "Hey, wink wink, I know this is all a hoax, you can trust me.""

You've gotta stop writing stuff like this. Another candidate hoodwinked you guys with his "wink, wink" eight years ago, and we'll be paying the price for generations to come.

HH. I think you are wrong. But we will let the record decide who is right.

Am I wrong about your refusing to sustain a dialog on these threads?

Am I wrong about your being afraid to speak honestly in this forum?

Am I wrong about the growing audience and influence of non-corporate news and opinion providers on the Internet?

Am I wrong about the bogus proposition that Swampland is a forum for discussion between Time-Warner readers and writers?

The record will decide who is right, and I doubt that you will be recorded as part of the rise of trusted, independent journalism.

Kevin Drum summed up "Mr. Wink Wink" for you Michael, maybe you'll look into the whole farce sometime...I'm going to guess after November.

Let's recap. Foreign policy cred lets him get away with wild howlers on foreign policy. Fiscal integrity cred lets him get away with outlandishly irresponsible economic plans. Anti-lobbyist cred lets him get away with pandering to lobbyists. Campaign finance reform cred lets him get away with gaming the campaign finance system. Straight talking cred lets him get away with brutally slandering Mitt Romney in the closing days of the Republican primary. Maverick uprightness cred allows him to get away with begging for endorsements from extremist religious leaders like John Hagee. "Man of conviction" cred allows him to get away with transparent flip-flopping so egregious it would make any other politician a laughingstock. Anti-torture cred allows him to get away with supporting torture as long as only the CIA does it.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_03/013394.php

So the press rewards insincerity as long as its purposeful, but derides attempts at honesty and transparency, because we're in a Po-Mo world.

I'd consider saying something about the Daily Show and the wink-wink-nudge-nudge effect, but at least the Daily Show recognizes that the idiocy is out there and is unacceptable. These prats embrace it and believe it to be the new way of political press. Pathetic and depressing, especially if it means McCain rides this to the presidency.

Thanks, Michael Scherer.

It just means that we reporters still have our work cut out for us.

I guess that means you reporters will have to stick to reporting on records, issues, positions and fact-checked claims, instead of writing florid essays on what eight days on the road with the campaign taught you about the candidate's true character, right?

...Right?

"So the press rewards insincerity as long as its purposeful, but derides attempts at honesty and transparency, because we're in a Po-Mo world."

Or maybe it's that the press rewards insincerity when it's used to hoodwink the rabblement--and not when it's used to pander to them (which is probably why they were fairly good at calling out Mitt Romney's insincerity).

RKA:

This seems to me to be a huge story...and I am puzzled why there is not more than a whisper of this in the mainstream media....

...Because it's up at DailyObama, a site whose credibility on anything campaign-related has evaporated completely in six months--except for Olbermann, apparently.

It is the Bush deja vu all over again.

Everyone thinks they "know" John McCain. He winks at the press, and the press winks at us, signaling that McCain is cool and OK, despite anything he says or does.

Remember Bush being "comfortable in his own skin" and being a guy you would "like to have a beer with?" He turns out to be the worst President in modern American history.

We have learned nothing.

Michael, a serious question.

First, I appreciate your linking the salon piece.

Do think if the economy continues to spiral and the Iraq war gets even nastier the press will soon find Maverick McCain's Maverick persona annoying and stale?

Michael, you will want to keep up with Media Matters new book on McCain -- Free Ride. Over the next 30 days they are going to talk about the top myths of McCain.

The "Maverick" is number one.

http://mediamattersaction.org/freeride/myths/#1

1. John McCain is a maverick.
It sometimes seems that you can't read a story about John McCain without seeing him referred to as a "maverick." But is it true?

Perhaps no word has been used to describe John McCain more often than "maverick." In January and February of 2008 alone, McCain was called a "maverick" more than 1,300 times in newspapers and on television. And those who use the label to describe McCain rarely explain just what he has done to earn it. But a closer examination of his record shows that McCain isn't quite the maverick that he is made out to be. The truth is that McCain's breaks from the Republican Party line are few and far between. According to Congressional Quarterly's "party unity" ratings, since he came to the Senate in 1989, there have been only three years in which McCain voted with his party less than 80 percent of the time. When he has gone against the party line -- such as on campaign finance reform, global warming, or tobacco regulations -- McCain has taken a position that was overwhelmingly popular with the public, meaning that when he takes a "maverick" stance, he's gaining support with the public -- and hardly taking a political risk.

Just as important, McCain's acts of independence aren't so much on high-profile issues as they are on issues that the press makes high-profile, precisely because of McCain's involvement. In all these cases, something important happens in the media when McCain opposes his party. When an ordinary senator crosses party lines, he or she will join members of the other party and perhaps have occasional opportunities to be quoted or interviewed on the issue in question. When McCain crosses party lines, on the other hand, the story the news media write undergoes a shift: It then becomes a story not about a conflict between Democrats and Republicans, but a story about John McCain and his rebellion. This is why McCain is perceived to be much more of a maverick than Republicans such as Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins, who actually break with the GOP far more often. Yet journalists continue over and over to call McCain a "maverick," seldom questioning whether there might be more to the story.

******************

Hope MM is able to shame McCain's base into being more honest. Long time habits, hard to break.

HH, you hit the nail on the head. It is deja vu all over again. Look how well the Bush enabling has turned out. McCain will continue the disastrous policy of war and more war.

Do the enablers in the political press (you know who you are) ever think about the seeds they have sown?

Ugh...the more and more I read that article, the more it feels less scathing than it should be. While there are bits that bely the feeling of condescension and mechination that comes from all of it, it almost seems adulatory about McCain's approach.

That's NOT something I want to feel from an article about McCain's cynical playing of the press and subversion of the Daily Show-esque 'media is a puppet show' postmodernism.

Gabler makes zero sense when he argues that McCain's self-deprecation is "liberal." The words liberal and conservative literally have no meaning in our dialogue any more.

And he left out the part about McCain giving the press free drinks and BBQ parties.

Do the enablers in the political press (you know who you are) ever think about the seeds they have sown?

They are fantasy merchants, and business remains good. Storm clouds have been gathering for a while, but until a tornado blows your house to bits, people who tell you it ain't gonna rain are very popular.

The great error I made for much of my life was assuming that pragmatism was deeply encoded in the American character. In fact, all it took was a few decades of steady prosperity to turn us into a nation of pathetic fantasy addicts and amoral predators.

You can't bull$hit the atmosphere, or the oceans. You can't spin more oil into Earth's depleted petroleum reserves. You can't turn a pile of bogus mortgages into a mountain of gold. You can't unbreak Iraq and pretend it never happened.

A hard rain is going to fall.

HH:

A case might be made for the idea they are about to suffer THEIR 'Katrina'.

After all, Katrina IS the 'holotype' and the template for national level, politically motivated wanton neglect...

Another test of the media love affair with McCain is beginning to assert itself. McCain is clearly showing his age. His handlers surely see this. Watch how they will try to limit his appearances. Watch how they will try to limit the number of debates in the general election. Michael, how will the media cover this?

Let's stay focused on the candidates' styles, the horse race and anything that might have been said by some ancillary figure. That way we can skip the tedious and unsexy analysis of, oh, I don't know –– ISSUES! We can all be shocked, SHOCKED a few years later when the successful candidate does something disastrous we didn't see coming because we weren't looking.

Yeah, great idea.

A case might be made for the idea they are about to suffer THEIR 'Katrina'.

When fiber optic broadband reaches every household in America, the concept of channel scarcity will vanish. Anyone with appealing content will be able to publish/broadcast at negligible cost. This will wipe out the distribution advantages of corrupt media corporations like Time-Warner-Moloch.

Already, reliable independents like Josh Marshall (Polk Award winner), are experimenting with video coverage. In ten years, people will be fleeing from the propaganda crap of FOX and CNN in droves. The problem is that many of us may be killed in a nuclear exchange before then.

America is literally going to run out of gas in the next few years, and if a crazy militarist like McCain is in office when it happens, our country may be devastated by the consequences of mass media-aggravated collective madness.

So we are in a race between commercial broadcast propaganda trying to reach the trigger of world war, and interactive Internet news trying to reach the safety switch of a rational world society. The outcome is in doubt.

A case might be made for the idea they are about to suffer THEIR 'Katrina'.

After all, Katrina IS the 'holotype' and the template for national level, politically motivated wanton neglect...

I'm not sure that's much of an anology, 53_2. Them suffering 'their Katrina' suggests that they're going to be the victims of fatal neglect, when they're the ones actively neglecting the signs (which they often themselves contribute to).

Whatever the price of this willing hackery there is, the press won't pay the price: the American People will. The press will still have their jobs and be the lovely puppets they remain. The American people will be stuck with a government decided on the basis of 'hey, you know I'm full of crap, so how about I admit it, you laugh, and make me look good for being 'honest'?'

Geh....messed up my italics up there. The second line should be italicized as well.

Kryptik:

True.

I love your reference to "honesty". It's an appropriate statement these days of political hypocrisy.

(getting better at spelling all the forms of that word, thanks jayackroyd, Paul Daniel Ash)

Don't feel bad, Kryptik.

I've been hacking the word "hypocrite" up in astonishing and novel ways the past few days. I've tripped over it maybe 50 times, at least.

Eventually, I learn, though...

Netroots organizers are pressing the FEC to enforce the law. McCain, having opted in to public financing for the nomination process, cannot opt out without FEC approval. He has not received FEC approval, because the FEC does not have a quorum. Hence he is still opted in, and is in violation of FEC regs. Petition link below.

http://action.firedoglake.com/page/petition/mccainfec

I don't see how the FEC can rule one way or another, now. But there will be an FEC again some day in the future.

There has been no mention of this in the campaign finance coverage of McCain's campaign that I have seen, including a Michael Cooper (McC BBQ) piece in the NYTimes. (He is now off the McCain bus, replaced by Bumiller.)

Netroots organizers are pressing the FEC to enforce the law.

Enforce the law? How quaint! Bush clearly established that Caesar does not obey any law. Why should the press expect McCain, the next Caesar, to obey the law?

The law is something that scurrilous liburls and greedy trial lawyers use to try to pull down our heroic leaders. A great man needs no law to guide him. He will tell a good joke, and all will be well.

How different is McCain's schtick from that of Bush circa 2000? The whole mocking, towel-snapping jokester thing with the press has worked before, hasn't it?

Not very different at all. And I hate to be cruel here, especially to Michael, who is kind enough to participate in the comments, but I really do believe that a lot of the dynamic here is that the "nerdy" journalists get off on being able to pal around with the "cool" candidates. It's pathetic but typical of our modern press corps.

I'm wrong to mock Michael for his constant highs-school references, for is it indeed these experiences that shape the mindset of our reporters. And usually for the worse.

The nerds have always loved McCain:

The further cadets rose in the academy, the fewer demerits they were allowed. Naturally, McCain was pushing the limit as his senior year neared an end.

McCain already had been skirting the rules. He and some friends had bought a television, which was prohibited. They would gather in their rooms on weekends, watching boxing on Friday nights and a Western, Maverick, on Sundays. The men kept the TV hidden in a "pipe locker," a space between the dormitory rooms that housed plumbing, heating and ventilation.

"One day, the company officer got to crawling around in there, and he found the TV," Gamboa said.

Normally, all the men involved would play a game similar to paper, rock, scissors to determine who would get the demerits. But Gamboa and the others wouldn't let McCain take the chance. The 30 demerits from the TV would get him kicked out.

"He wanted to, but we just insisted," Gamboa said. "The guy who took the demerits (a model midshipman named Henry Vargo) had none."

Source: http://www.azcentral.com/news/specials/mccain/articles/0301mccainbio-chapter2.html

Henry Vargo was just as pleased to help John McCain as is Michael Scherer.

This is actually a story I had once wanted to write myself, but it got lost in the tumult of the early primary.

If there was a story written about how the press THINKS John McCain is the high school quarterback, that would have been interesting.

Just because a candidate pokes fun at himself does not necessarily mean he is any less of a fraud. (Nor does it mean he is more of a fraud.) It just means that we reporters still have our work cut out for us.

Does this mean "let's treat every candidate the same and not pretend we have the power to read minds."

Cool. I'm on board with critiques of candidates based on research rather than storylines and blather about AUTHENTICITY. (Neal Gabler's thesis about John McCain is that he has none.) Does this mean that reporters will no longer enjoy it when their heartthrob lies to them?

Good catch on that one, HH.

It's Stockhlom syndrome. Years of being tormented by the "cool kids" have led the nerds of the press corps to identify with them.

----The Media and all the other Party's is Laughing and Talking about US----

FIGHTING AND DIVIDING over OBAMA and HILLARY---

NEITHER is PERFECT...

Yet WE are acting like WE don't have GOOD SENSE

---- ---THINK---THINK--- DO YOU HATE each OTHER that much that you will allow MCcain/the Republican to WIN----

Do YOU hate the U.S. that much that You are willing to DESTROY the U.S.A. with 4 MORE YRS. with ANOTHER Bush----

COME TOGETHER---and THINK---STOP letting the MEDIA PLAY US---

IF we STOP POSTING COMMENTS about the OTHER--

They will STOP putting up Unnecessary TICKERS---

VOTE Democratic---NO MATTER WHAT---PROVE THEM WRONG--

IF WE LOSE--- DON'T COMPLAIN WHEN THINGS GET WORSE---

reporters indeed still have their work cut out for them.
unfortunately, it appears that you have decided not to do the hard work.
i am one reader who is still waiting for you to do some actual reporting on john mccain.
your "reporting" on mccain has so far consisted of acting as a conduit for press releases from the campaign.
but so far, there has been absolutely no hard reporting on the myriad of contradictions, lies, "gaffes" and distortions that mccain has littered over the campaign trail over the last few months.
i ask again:
when are you actually going to do some reporting on john mccain?

HH: "You and your colleagues grasp nothing but your next paycheck. That's your opening line to your prophesies of doom? Do you realize how little journalists get paid?

Swampland is false to its core. It maintains a pretense of a forum in which readers can engage the Time writers, but the writers run and hide at every attempt to have a sustained dialog on any issue. Nowhere does it say this is forum for readers to engage Time writers. It's a blog - they post, we read, and some of us comment. If they want they can respond, but nothing obligated a national columnist to respond to the criticisms or ranting of every person on the internet who takes the time to register and create an account. After all, religiously reading mainstream sites while simultaneously professing seated loathing for that which you follow so closely is fun, someone has to get in the field, interview sources , read legislation, and do all the work that brings you the news. Talking about free distribution is good and well, but until people decide they want to do the work of a journalist for free, your revolution isn’t going to happen.

"The growing number of trusted independent reporters and commentators on the public Internet are going to sweep you all into the dustbin of history." If you believe this is true, then help make it come to pass. Vote with your browser. Stop providing ad revenue to Time by ceasing your visits to this site.

jayackroyd,

thanks for mentioning the campaign finance law violation.
it is remarkable that not one word has been written here at swampland, on that particular issue.
consider that: prima facie evidence - it's all there in the public record! - that a presidential candidate is breaking the law, in an area that he has been extremely active and vocal, and not a word on it from the reporters who are supposedly reporting on that candidate!
how much of a willful refusal to perform one's duty - to the public - does it take to literally ignore this issue, as is being done by every reporter - outside of certain bloggers.
what is almost as amazing is the fact that reporters become indignant and self-righteous if you ever mention these uncomfortable facts.
or they do as mr. scherer does: they simply ignore it.

Swampland is false to its core. It maintains a pretense of a forum in which readers can engage the Time writers, but the writers run and hide at every attempt to have a sustained dialog on any issue.

I have to disagree there. Michael, Ana, and Karen make a real effort to engage readers and they deserve a lot of credit for that.

yes, speaking of campaign finance reform....

http://firedoglake.com/2008/03/26/holding-mccain-accountable-for-campaign-finance-violations/#more-20404

have to disagree there. Michael, Ana, and Karen make a real effort to engage readers and they deserve a lot of credit for that

I still often picture it as being allowed to play in the sand box while the adults all continue their important work on the print edition.

I still often picture it as being allowed to play in the sand box while the adults all continue their important work on the print edition.

The print edition is their main job and I see no problem with the fact that they might allocate their time 90% for that and 10% for this. That ten percent is ten percent more than the amount of time reporters at the NYT spend engaging readers. Until the rest of the media steps up their blogging/reader interaction game, we should applaud the reporters here for putting in as much time on this as they do.

Talking about free distribution is good and well, but until people decide they want to do the work of a journalist for free, your revolution isn’t going to happen.

My revolution is happening now, because I and many other "readers" on this thread are doing the work of journalists for free. The reader-generated portion of a typical Swampland thread is generally superior to the contribution of the Time writers. (Of course, we do not enjoy the deeply informative experience of being bozos on the McCain bus.)

As exceptionally capable independent news providers emerge on the Internet, they will have no difficulty supporting themselves because they will attract the high traffic that translates into advertising or reader donation revenue. Glenn Greenwald is doing just fine.

I post at this site because it is very satisfying to use the resources of the Temple of Moloch to provide accurate information to uninformed visitors. If this makes Richard Stengel's pack of blogging poodles uncomfortable, that's too bad.

Peter--

Well said.

Paul Dirks--

It is interesting to speculate about why they are doing this. Not just here, but throughout the Time web presence.

In the beginning of 2007, the year's first issue was delayed for approximately a week due to "editorial changes". The changes included the job losses of 49 employees.

Circulation

As of June 2007, Time's lead over rival Newsweek is reported to have narrowed, with circulation at 3.4 million, down from over 4 million during the same period in 2006.

It obviously has something to do with declining circulation and ad revenue, and, presumably, demographics that are skewing older than there advertisers like.

But, as people in the newspaper business keep saying, converting dead tree dollars to digital cents is not going to keep the enterprise going.

their advertisers.

Okay, HH, I'm gonna bite, but don't get used to it.

You asked: Am I wrong about your refusing to sustain a dialog on these threads?

You are wrong. I refuse nothing. But neither am I obliged to respond to every commenter, especially those whose comments are little more than ad hominem attacks. You can rest assured that I regularly read them though.

You asked: Am I wrong about your being afraid to speak honestly in this forum?

I have never tried to be anything but honest. My sense is that you have a fury at big corporate media that is overly categorical. I wrote on the campaign for Salon for a year, and never heard the sort of animosity that I hear at TIME. I do the same work here. It is my work. My editors have never told me to do anything different.

You asked: Am I wrong about the growing audience and influence of non-corporate news and opinion providers on the Internet?

I have written about the changes the Internet is forcing. One benefit is the cost of distribution goes down so smaller enterprises can distribute news, which is good for Democracy. But it is still true that professional journalists (many of them working for, gasp, corporations) are doing fantastic work and providing much of the knowledge base for others online.

You asked: Am I wrong about the bogus proposition that Swampland is a forum for discussion between Time-Warner readers and writers?

I was not here when Swampland was created, but I think it works quite well. It is first of all a forum for us reporters to write our thoughts and distribute our reporting, quickly and informally. It is second of all a forum for readers to talk back to us, and to talk to each other. I try as much as I can to weigh in to the comments when I have time and someone has asked of me a substantive questions. But Swampland is not a place where I am obligated to debate every critic. I pick and choose what I post in comments, just as you do. I will try to monitor the comments and respond when appropriate or when I want to.But I have not promised anything more.

So, if you respond to this post with another rhetorical rant about my total and complete corporate corruption and disregard for the truth, there is a very good chance that i will not respond.

Also, HH, I wonder what kind of kid you were in high school. . . (A joke. I kid. It's Ironic, see. Like McCain on the bus, I am employing humor in the hope that you might hate me less.)

Of course, I am pretty sure it won't work.

for, gasp, corporations

I always try to remind myself that corporations are collections of individuals each of whom can and should be regarded separately when making moral judgements.

I do howaver beleive that as organizations get larger and do more "managing by spreadsheet" rather than making decisions at a reasonably human scale, the decisions themselves get worse.

And trying to ascertain the "self-interest" of a monlolithic entity such as Time/Warner can get quite confusing. (and likely to result in excessively broad brush-strokes.)

Cheer up, Michael. It looks like you may have a chance with Megan McCain after all:

“I like bad boys for the most part,” Meghan adds. “In the past, I have liked tattooed guys who wear Converse. But I’d be open to anyone as long as you have a sense of humor. I have also dated totally normal guys who look like you, I guess—D.C.-looking guys.”

Gabler's column confirmed what we all already know. The bozos on the bus see the whole game, i.e. campaign politics, as "all about them": what they like, what the candidates do for them, what's easy and comfy for them, whether what the candidate does makes it easy for them to do their job. Why should any one of these bozos have a shred of credibility, then? And that lack of credibility should carry over to their off-campaign work too. Because if they see the campaign in terms of what the candidate can do for them, wouldn't they see their sources in the same light?

I mean, why shouldn't these bozos, Holly Bailey et al, be whacked for that? You're on that list, Scherer, because you refuse to write anything about McCain, even though you are on his beat. (according to Cox.) Your mistake was that you impressed with your good writing and analysis early, so your corruption was a greater disappointment than, say, Cox, who by her own accounting "isn't that kind of writer."

Beautiful resposne, Michael.

James where do you get this "refuse to write anything" stuff? I blog regularly on McCain. Written several online articles. And have other pieces coming out in the magazine. Both in Swampland, and in my reporting beat, I am not limited to just McCain.

Now whether I should post on every mini-scandal/press release/development every day is another question. I don't think I have to. I mostly blog about this stuff when I feel I have something to add.

As for why should those bozo's have any credibility, look again at the NYT piece from today. It is based on what reporters write about McCain. I would say that we are often very self-reflective about the experience. I know I have tried to be. This does not win us credibility automatically, but neither does it mean that we are bozos just for getting on the bus and laughing at a candidate's joke or two.

I don't think the people on the bus, myself included, though I have only done it a few times, are as self-obsessed as you suggest. We want to make news,as I pointed out in that Salon article from last year.

But it is still true that professional journalists (many of them working for, gasp, corporations) are doing fantastic work and providing much of the knowledge base for others online.

Part of the problem is that corporations short change the newsroom. HH, I suggest you reading Fighting for Air to get a sense of this. That's not to say that individual reporters are always the heroes, but that tons of things happen that are beyond the control of the guy responsible for reporting the story.

Mr. Scherer: many thanks for responding to your readers.

I just thought of a serious ethnographic question that I'm curious about:

Have you ever seen any of your reporter colleagues get sanctioned or shunned by the rest of the press pack for being too much of a cynic or malcontent about things like McCain's maverick-ness, Bush's affability, or any other apparently prevailing press perception?

You don't have to name names, but I'm curious if you've noticed the same social dynamics among your colleagues that, for example, Matt Taibbi has.

Of course, I realize that answering such a question might result in the kind of social action Henry James refers to as a "cut."

It's Ironic, see. Like McCain on the bus, I am employing humor in the hope that you might hate me less.

(insert "rain on your wedding day" reference here)

Michael, I know we are, by and large, a bunch of a$$holes when we're not sort of embarrassingly grateful that you guys deign to talk to us. If the roles were reversed, I wouldn't want to talk to me either, I guess.

That being said: can you understand the bitterness many of us still have about 2000? Given how much of an effect media narratives had on that election -- and by extension, how much of an effect that election had on the nation and the world -- it ain't easy to get over.

As a person, Michael, and a fellow blogger, of course I have sympathy for you. Sometimes it's hard, though, to avoid lashing out - you're a member of a group that I think has done significant harm, as a group, to a nation i used to love and a planet I still do.

"Their Katrina" reminds me of the "Mandate of Heaven," which according to Wiki: (天命 Pīnyīn: Tiānmìng) was a traditional Chinese sovereignty concept of legitimacy used to support the rule of the kings of the Zhou Dynasty and later the Emperors of China. Heaven would bless the authority of a just ruler, but Heaven would be displeased with an unwise ruler and give the Mandate to someone else.

God, if only an ice shelf would fall on Congress and the corp offices of the MSM.

I can't think of anything like that. I like Taibbi's stuff a lot, but I think he oversimplifies in his excoriations of the campaign press.

Rather, in these settings, on the bus or in a press conference, the competition among the reporters is not to suck up, but to come up with the question that actually produces new information or catches the candidate off guard. There are also other times, after hours and often off the record, when relations between press and campaign staff can be more informal, but even there I think the ultimate goal is almost always professional. We build relationships with people so that they can trust that we will not unfairly treat them, which facilitates the flow of information.

It gets more tricky when there is a dispute about what is unfair and what is not, which happens frequently, often with terse email exchanges or screaming press secretaries at the other end of a phone. I treat this criticism much as I treat the criticism from people who write to this blog. I try to figure out if the critic has a valid point. If I think not,my job is just to suffer the torment of decreased access and a hostile relationship with the campaign--or reader. This is something most of us experience regularly, and it is part of the job.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/obama_and_the_jews.php

And Stuart, weren't you waiting for this moment?

Funny, Stuart...I remember Daily Kos being Edwards territory up until about 8 weeks ago.

But the diary I linked was my own, Stuart.

My sources on information about Scaife and Clinton, which I linked, are NBC, the New York Times, and Newsweek.

But its typical of you Stuart, that you don't want to address the meaningful question instead blame the messenger or the medium in which the messenger communicates.

But that's probably because you have no other choice. The candidate for whom you play apologist for is collaborating with the very people who have been supposedly which hunting her for years.

It does not pass the smell test and you know it.

Of course you have no curiosity about why this may be. Big surprise.

Maybe you are one of Scaife's people helping HIllary out?

Your views on race seem to be more consistent with a Scaife person than any democrat I know...

It's Ironic, see. Like McCain on the bus, I am employing humor in the hope that you might hate me less.

(insert "rain on your wedding day" reference here)

I prefer:

I had the brew she had the chronic
The lakers beat the supersonics

Gee, I guess all of us atwitter about the barby just had it all wrong. Read Scott Spencer's latest novel Mike--journo tags along on a world sex-tour and ends up whoring himself. Sound familiar. Now, is that mean Beth in VA? Terribly sorry.

you're a member of a group that I think has done significant harm, as a group, to a nation i used to love

This is correct. When we add in the half million Iraqi dead, there isn't much to joke about in the spectacle of the decline of America's fourth estate. It is interesting that the expectations of good behavior on Swampland rank chattiness and a pleasant demeanor high above the search for truth.

It is the truth that I am after. I would like to know the truth about why Time-Warner-Moloch was a relentless cheerleader for war in Iraq. I would like to know the truth about why TWM has never held Bush accountable for torture and lawbreaking. I would like to know the truth about why TWM does not investigate the missing White House emails. I would like to know the truth about a lot of things that the Time writers on Swampland don't want to talk about.

But let me address a specific question to Michael Scherer, since I appear to have his attention. How would you define your responsibilities as a journalist, Mr. Scherer?

Don't worry Mike & co., I'm leaving the soulless sabbatical gig in 2.5 days and heading back to the classroom where I'll better veil my bile. Meanwhile, keep up the good fight--we all really hold you in the highest regard. As Stuart would say "THANK YOU" thank you so much for tossing loose coins off our foreheads, you flippin tool. And for future ref, skip the vain attempts at humor. It ain't in ya.

Michael,

You blog on McCain when he supposedly does something magnificent. You have not written anything about who his neocon advisors are, about his taxpayer-funded swing through Europe, about his wacky ideas on Iraq or foreign affairs, about his infamous intemperance, about his gaffes, about his idiotic press conference on the economy yesterday. In short, you write puff pieces on McCain. Your assertion that with respect to McCain reporters (bozos on the bus) are after news? Show me, please. Give me links to substantive articles and analysis in major publication, and I promise I'll take the time to read them thoroughly before I return to exorciate you again, or apologize.

(I haven't read your Salon link, but I will after work.)

Cox thought that we needed a "national dialogue" about McCain's foreign policy vs. Obama, then she disappeared into the ether without another word about it. Left my questions hanging. So, let's dialogue. Who's gonna do it? I'm ready.

Scherer: "We build relationships with people so that they can trust that we will not unfairly treat them, which facilitates the flow of information. "

Hey, thanks for answering.

But I must confess that it still mystifies me every time I see the WH press corps laugh masochistically whenever Bush mocks or disparages them.

Except for maybe Bill Plante, who seems to have little patience for that nonsense.

Speaking of McCain and irony...

These two headlines are currently up at Google News simultaneously.....

McCain Asserts Iraq Withdrawal Could Mean Civil War

Maliki Gives Shiite Militias 72 Hours to Halt Fighting

You asked: Am I wrong about your refusing to sustain a dialog on these threads?

You are wrong. I refuse nothing. But neither am I obliged to respond to every commenter, especially those whose comments are little more than ad hominem attacks. You can rest assured that I regularly read them though.

Please point out to me a single instance on Swampland where you have engaged in an extended discussion of any topic with a reader. Alternatively, please point me to a thread involving any other Time writer for Swampland that contains a similar extended discussion.

Moloch who entered my soul early! Moloch in whom
I am a consciousness without a body! Moloch
who frightened me out of my natural ecstasy!
Moloch whom I abandon! Wake up in Moloch!
Light streaming out of the sky!

I think the whole thing is less about McCain being a postmodern president than how self-absorbed the news media is about itself.

Roughly half the blogs here it feels like are about the news media, or at least indirectly related to it. Why does the MSM kiss McCain's ass, the MSM's bias against Hillary, MSM this, MSM that. Won't even go into how many other blogs and op-eds I keep seeing about the MSM's influence/reaction/speculation/circle jerking on the race, rather than, you know, the issues that are challenging this race and its candidates. I know it's still an important subject, but it reminds me of the lousy date who won't shut his/her mouth about themselves.

McCain plays the "easiest get" to the media (as Howard Fineman once so accurately put it). This is simple, common fact. Yet now we must discuss ad nauseum the blitheringly obvious from every angle: why the media habitually slurps on his old wrinkled ass. Even more a kick in the ass is when you remember that talk, especially in the MSM, is cheap. There's yet another fine op-ed on the subject, yay. Will the MSM stop this obnoxiousness? Probably not, even as McDick potentially saunters into the White House because of it. But hey, we got great op-eds out of it, so no worries. Right?

Also, I find it a bit funny how everyone is suddenly an HH fan whenever he's not bashing KT and just someone else (I personally usually enjoy the meaning of his posts, however otherwise hostile to the journos they can get sometimes). I find that to be a curious observance whenever I see it.

Oh, and Stuart...TPM and The New Republic are interested in this story, despite a near blackout from the mainstream media.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/185608.php

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/03/26/joining-the-conspiracy.aspx

Saife and Hillary were photographed together yesterday!

Yet there is virtual silence from the mainstream media.

I am living in a bizarro world here. The Clintons are collaborating with the people behind the Arkansas project and nobody outsdei of the blogosphere cares?

WTF?!??!!?

Michael-

It seemed to me that the Bumiller exchange with McCain was designed to set boundaries, early on, on what can and can't be asked in these 'freewheeling' sessions.

And that when Ana told Howie Kurtz that these kinds of things generally only happened to reporters who were new to the bus, it reinforced the idea that there are clear boundaries.

It would be surprising if some of this boundary setting was not done in part by peer pressure.

Now, from exchanges with Ana on McCain and torture, one thing he can do is stonewall, which is what he does when he says that waterboarding is illegal, so there is no need to prohibit the CIA from doing it.

IAC, I do not believe this is a sustainable model. His campaign is too amateurish, he's too undisciplined, and he is on the wrong side of every issue. They'll have to lock him up at some point (maybe even next week if he read his speech today as prepared, without making modifications due to today's developments).

I don't know whether its gonna be Old John McCain, or McFlip McFlop, or John W. McSame or Unstable John McCain, but one of these negatives is gonna stick. And it will work its way back into the narrative.

Why do I get the feeling, HH, that if he started a dialog with you, it would never end? I'm sure you know that too. So can you blame him for wanting to spend his time, like, hunting down stories instead? (Personally, I hope that's where his professional priorities lie, even if I don't always agree with those priorities in detail...)

The entire political process exists solely for members of the MSM, it's a backdrop for their absurdist play...there are no consequences, just free BBQ. This isn't postmodern, this is f@cking Dada.

James, That list of stories has a lot of good ones, and on the issues, I am with you. Some of them are works in progress. I want to do a lot of issue comparisons once we have two nominees. Joe blogged well on the gaffs in iraq. Some of them, however, do not seem to me like huge scandals. (The mostly rhetorical slinging of DNC press releases about who pays for the CODEL? Another temper story?) I am not saying they are absolutely not things to work on, but again, I don't want to respond to each of the dozen oppo docs i get from the DNC (or the RNC) every day. And I doubt I am going to post on, yet another, tit for tat between Obama and McCain which is going on now.

The Page covers this stuff very well, I think.

In the meantime, stay tuned. . .

You asked: Am I wrong about your being afraid to speak honestly in this forum?

I have never tried to be anything but honest. My sense is that you have a fury at big corporate media that is overly categorical. I wrote on the campaign for Salon for a year, and never heard the sort of animosity that I hear at TIME. I do the same work here. It is my work. My editors have never told me to do anything different.

I just went back and read your puff piece on Meghan McCain in Salon. With journalistic instincts like these you require no direction from TWM. You are predestined to curry favor with any candidate that you cover.

Access corruption is like cash corruption, except the medium of exchange is the news value of direct access to important politicians. Treat them well, and you get better access; treat them badly and you get dumped.

By defending Meghan against the scornful rabble, you accumulated a few more access markers with the McCain camp. Was it dishonest to speak out in defense of poor Meghan? Only if you had some other interest in mind.

Why do I get the feeling, HH, that if he started a dialog with you, it would never end? I'm sure you know that too. So can you blame him for wanting to spend his time, like, hunting down stories instead?

Right, J.J. I am, after all, just a crazy ranter, and even an attempt at an exchange lasting more than three messages would be a terrible waste of Mr. Scherer's time. This would divert him from developing hard-hitting stories on the anguish felt by Meghan McCain about mean comments on her blog.

If Scherer and I got to talking, I might put him up to some really dangerous stunts, like asking McCain if we should still be fighting in Vietnam, or getting more details on the dumping of the first Mrs. McCain. Scherer could even get thrown off the bus if he wasted time listening to crazy, over-the-top ranters.

James,

I did find my copy of Foreign Affairs with the McCain essay. (They did a series, of dem and one repub candidate describing their foreign policy views.)

And, as usual, it was incoherent.

The first third was a bellicose assertion of US power in the Middle East, of staying the course in Iraq, being tough with Iran and muscularly supporting Israel.

The remaining two thirds was different--it proposed new international organizations pursuing democracy, talked about the need for diplomacy and cooperation, was sensible about China.

He apparently described himself today as a "realistic idealist" on foreign policy issues. That pretty much summarizes the entire McCain candidacy--President McCain as an oxymoron.

But it's very possible that if Ana heard him speaking at length on the democracy promotion, diplomacy encouraging intitiatives, she might well have been impressed by the broad sweep of his views.

Michael,
I will stay tuned. You know, I would have been very happy to have fair and balanced (no snark intended) coverage of all of the candidates -- you know, on the issues, fair comparison, all that. But you and your fellows here on this blog spend an *inordinate* amount of time fulminating about trivial and uncomplimentary cr@p on the Democrats, twisting quotes, speculating abut ulterior motives, and so on. Is it too much to ask the SAME treatment of McCain? I mean, everyone has hyperventilated about Wright and not a word about the rightwing theocratic wackos being collected by McCain. Fair's fair. Or, unfair, but the same.

But, I'll peruse tonight after work.
thanks for responding.
-j

Michael, as an earlier poster said, many of us still bear the scars of 2000, when the MSM really carried Bush's water for him.

My fear is, and I can really seeing it happening, is that whenever the MSM actually gets tough with McCain, Fox, the WSJ and Kristol, from his shiny new home at NYT, will blather on and on about how the media favors Obama. And the media then will back off McCain and start reporting on trivial stuff about Obama, so as to appear "fair and balanced". And of course the MSM will continue to fawn on McCain overall.

The only way Obama will catch any kind of break once he's running against McCain is if the economy and the war are both going so awful McCain can't run merely as a war hero (corollary being he really gets foreign policy).

Just a heads up that Juan Cole will be on the News Hour tonight.

Interesting thread...

It's clear that there is too much emphasis on personality and not enough emphasis on character and policy in political coverage. But is this perhaps just an extension of the larger societal trend of an ever growing fascination with gossip? Most interviews with politicians are essentially the same as a typical celebrity interview, especially now that most celebrities have their own political or philanthropic cause.

Because we are all so fascinated by politics I think it's easy for us to forget that most people find politics boring. The core problem may be that most voters are getting the political coverage they want.

Michael Scherer:
"I would say that we are often very self-reflective about the experience. I know I have tried to be. This does not win us credibility automatically, but neither does it mean that we are bozos just for getting on the bus and laughing at a candidate's joke or two."

This is starting to piss me off. I don't want you to be self-reflective. I want you, someone, anyone, to get off McCain's nuts and ask him some hard f---ing questions. I want you to do your damn job as a reporter.

Shorter Michael Scherer:
"No, no, it's cool guys. It's all right that McCain is lying to us because he KNOWS he's lying to us! Get it? Get it?"

Take a look at Carney's post above this one, about how McCain plans to use the media to his advantage, and how that's all OK. Between that post and this one, I've had it with the double thumbs up you guys give to McCain.

I mean, do you ever notice that no one buys this crap about McCain? You keep posting positive entries about him, or self-referential, self-reflective BS, and we keep asking you to ask him some hard f---ing questions! About the war! About the economy! About torture! About Hagee and why McCain has been kissing up to the evangelicals!

Well? Why don't you ask him these things, and save your BS posts on transcendental meditation for after the f---ing election?

it's easy for us to forget that most people find politics boring

I don't know that anyone "forgets" that, Rose... most of us, I think, have friends that express that very opinion.

A more interesting question is how people came to that opinion. We used to have a news media that more-or-less covered "boring" political issues in a way that connected with their audiences.

There is a "chicken-and-egg" question about what you refer to as "the societal trend of an ever growing fascination with gossip." In other words, is the media following or driving this trend?

Corporations would have you believe that they are merely "giving people what they want." I think it's an open question, when all that's on sale are burgers, whether people wouldn't really prefer a nice prime rib.

This is an interesting piece. Mr. Scherer admits that the MSM has been bamboozled by Senator McCain. He doesn't actually report on any of McCain's whoppers, his support for the Military Commission's Act (which allowed torture to be conducted by non-military U.S. agencies), his Bushesque economic policies, the complete dearth of any kind of a health care proposal or any of the myriad votes the Senator has cast, virtually all in lockstep with the lying smearing Republicans, or his "spiritual advisors" or anything.

but he at least admits to the bamboozlement!

Michael, I know you get sick of this, but tell me honestly: you guys all get off on the whole towel-snapping, jocky thing, don't you? And you've treated George W. Bush better because of his mistreatment of you?

You don't have to answer the second because I know you're not a WH correspondent. But admit it: there's some weird nerd jock-worship thing that afflicts you and your il?

Thank you very much for responding to commentary, Michael Scherer.

Paul Daniel Ash, Good points. You're right, that definitely is the larger question. But I would say that by the time people reach adulthood, they have formed most of their tastes (that's why advertisers are so focused on teenagers). So I doubt that the political media is the chicken in in this case.

And I at least do sometimes forget how profoundly disinterested most people are in politics.

Michael you are surely upsetting the swampland Neophytes...I think that is what 53_2 calls them.

I just want to say Peter who posted a comment;
Posted by Peter Author Profile Page | March 26, 2008 12:55 PM

...is right on target and calls them out, "The growing number of trusted independent reporters and commentators on the public Internet are going to sweep you all into the dustbin of history. If you believe this is true, then help make it come to pass. Vote with your browser. Stop providing ad revenue to Time by ceasing your visits to this site".

The likes of HH, 53_2, TomT and so on are so 3rd grade, when their point of view is even challenged they resort to playground name calling 8 year olds. Grow up.

A journalist's job is to obtain the facts and report. A journalist with any integrity will keep his own personal views to himself when reporting the news.

It continues to make me laugh at the far-left or far-right nutballs when their extremist ideas, comments, and aspirations are called, like a big bluffer in a poker game when 4 aces trump their hand.

The likes of HH, 53_2, TomT and so on are so 3rd grade, when their point of view is even challenged they resort to playground name calling 8 year olds. Grow up.

Actually we are in High School, Rusty, where we huddle at the unpopular table in the cafeteria talking about Hunter Thompson, while cool kids like you discuss the big football game.

A journalist's job is to obtain the facts and report. A journalist with any integrity will keep his own personal views to himself when reporting the news.

That's what AMC was doing at the McCain BBQ: getting the facts on the rib recipe. She likes McCain and isn't afraid to says so. That's real integrity.

That's why they spend so much time on the McCain bus and plane. Those vehicles are just stuffed with facts. Somewhere on the bus is the answer to why McCain dumped his first wife and the number of years McCain thinks we should have stayed in Vietnam (100?). It's just a matter of time before these professionals locate all the facts on the Straight Talk Express.

"Now whether I should post on every mini-scandal/press release/development every day is another question. I don't think I have to. I mostly blog about this stuff when I feel I have something to add."

no one expects you to run to your oomputer every time a "mini-scandal" erupts.
what we do expect is that you would cover mccain in the same fashion that you and other reporters cover the other candidates.
what is obvious, based on what readers see, and based on the actual admissions of the reporters, is that you do not cover mccain in the same way.
i have read several admissions where reporters acknowledge that, yes, they did not report certain statements simply because they felt that mccain deserved to get a break because of his better than average candor.
that is outrageous!
reporters are supposed to report.
certainly, an amount of discretion is involved each time one reports, but i do not believe that it is fair and balanced to simply "give a break" to one candidate, while holding the feet of other candidates to the fire.

Michael,

I read your Salon piece. This was interesting:

By all appearances, the national press had somehow become one with the McCain campaign. We had been with him all day, nearly a dozen scribblers from the major papers, news Web sites, networks and wire services. We reclined on the motor coach's two couches, set our papers on its tables and swiveled in its leather chairs. There were six flat-screen televisions to watch the NCAA basketball finals, free WiFi for filing stories, packs of playing cards and boxes of powdered Donettes. A framed fern print hung above the toilet. We all sank into our seats, guests of honor mingling with senior staff, munching potato chips and Butterfingers with the candidate, peppering him with questions, and waiting for him to stumble. It went on for hours, with the subjects breaking in waves: Iraq, his age, military contracting, Jack Abramoff, the Bush administration, immigration, gays in the military. Everything was on the record, and nothing was off limits. It was a reporter's dream. David Broder, the grand muck-a-muck of campaign columnists, once called the national political press "the Screening Committee." John McCain, on the other hand, calls it "my base."

Yes. the bozos on the bus have become "one" with the McCain campaign. That's exactly the problem. Then you say "I don't think the people on the bus, myself included, though I have only done it a few times, are as self-obsessed as you suggest. We want to make news,as I pointed out in that Salon article from last year."

Look, writing about the bus and how great that is doesn't qualify as "making news" in my book. Just that quoted paragraph alone demonstrates without a doubt that you *are* actually as self-obsessed as we suggest. Your Salon article didn't have one item of substance, just how you might have talked about substance. Get it? Get the difference?

So you listen to McCain expound (you get any feeling he might be lying to you?) and you write a gushy piece about how McCain just expounds and expounds, without bothering to tell your g0ddamn readers anything at all, except how great it is. Those links with your piece at Salon? They are all about the McCain bus as well. Do you get why that *isn't* news? It's just a gushy piece about how a bunch of the guys sat around and listened to McCain, watched a basketball game and munched on free food. On the Bus.

Look, I don't have any problem with reporters doing some socializing with political people. I don't actually have a problem with The Bus. I *do* have a problem with the bozos on the bus who give McCain a free ride because he gives you a free ride. One big fat cigar-smoking back-slapping country club circle jerk is what it is. So tell me again why any of these free-ride bozos should have a shred of credibility?

I hope at some point in this campaign we might see the *end* of the stories about how great it is On the Bus, and maybe a couple of stories about WHAT HE PROPOSES TO DO, AND IS LIKELY TO DO, AS PRESIDENT. Get it?

One big fat cigar-smoking back-slapping country club circle jerk is what it is.

James, James, you are acting like a ranter. Don't you know that Time Magazine writers must be approached with great respect and civility? It is no ordinary person who is asked to sink into the leather swivel chairs of McCain's bozo bus. These are people who know how to behave at court. These are people who know how to show respect for the powerful. That is why they are on the bus.

Did you really expect them to tell you anything about McCain's positions? They simply basked in his greatness. They ate potato chips with John McCain, an American war hero and future President! Why I am sure they asked him all about Vietnam and how many more years we should have stayed there. I'm sure they asked him why he dumped his first wife and how his kids felt about his second marriage. But why should we care about his answers?

John McCain makes people feel good about themselves and makes people want to help John McCain. His first wife is one of his biggest fans. What difference does it make what he does in the White House. If he gets us all killed, we will die faithfully serving an American war hero. Could there be a greater honor?

Who me? A ranter? I thought I was pretty polite. huh.

Michael Scherer,

Here'a a suggestion about where to start with a couple of good pieces about McCain. (In the spirit of being constructive.)

How about a couple of pieces about McCain's voting record contrasted with his On the Bus rhetoric? His voting record contrasted with his rep as a "maverick." Get it? McCain's rhetoric is against Americans torturing prisoners. McCain's public record voting in favor of torturing prisoners. Get that? It isn't the same! He says one thing and votes the other way! another: He sponsored campaign reform! The AUTHOR of the McCain-Feingold bill! Now he's in violation of that law! And could go to prison over it! Get it? It's not the same! I'll leave some of the other items for you to discover for yourself.

That wouldn't be "buying in to DNC oppo pieces", but I think you'd find the contrast interesting, if you care to look. (Though, I can't help but laugh ruefully to myself considering the inordinate amount of time you guys spend publicly tittering about the oppo pieces the RNC sends you WRT the Dems. But never mind.)

To get you started: McCain On the Bus: "WE SHOULD NEVER TORTURE!